E 449 
.H847 
Copy 1 



ii 



SLAYEHOLDim NOT SINFUL : " 



A EEPLY 



/i^, 
W 



TO THE ARGUMENT OF REY. DR. HOW. 



BY JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 



NEW-BRUNSWICK, N. J. : 
J>RJSTEO AT THE PREDONIAN AND JDAILY NEW-BRUNSWICKER OFFICE. 

1856. 



E'-ff 



u 



^f/ 






TO THE KEY. SAMUEL B. HOW, D. D., 

NEW-BRUNSWJCK, NEW-JERSE^: 

Dear Sir, — 

I have just examined the speech published in pamphlet 
form, entitled "Slaveholding not Sinful," delivered by you before the 
Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church in New- York, in October 1855 
on the subject of admitting a Classis from North Carolina into that 
body. 

Had you been content with the expression of your views before the 
Synod on the particular subject then pending, I should simply have 
supposed that an excited zeal for the extension of the borders of the 
particular church to which you belong, had involuntarily led you into 
indiscreet and erroneous positions, which, upon calm reflection you 
would have hastened to retract, or at least to have let the subject slept 
in silence without further "agitation," and which would have rendered it 
unnecessary to do any thing more than to admire it as au elaborate and 
somewhat ingenious argument in favor of a bad cause. But, when after 
months of reflection, and amid much excitement on the subject in the 
country, we find j^ou making that argument the basis of a laboriously 
prepared volume, with additions and improvements, apologizing for 
supporting, sustaining, and giving aid and comfort, in all its length and 
breadth, to the shocking and loathsome system of human slavery as it 
exists in the United States ; and when I see the book, thus filled with 
heresies, evasions and misapplications, with copyright secured, scattered 
far and wide over the land, by and among the friends of bondao-e and 
the foes of freedom, and sent forth as the orthodox sentiment of this 
community on the subject of which it treats, I feel that something 
should be done to counteract, if possible, the mischief so likely to fol- 
low such a publication. 

Whatever you may have intended, you have in fact given your 
honored name and the best of your talents to the support and mainte- 
nance and perpetual duration of what you yourself admit to be " an evil 
much to lamented," — and which I do not hesitate to pronounce the- 
blackest, foulest and most disgraceful stain which rests on the country 
of which we are so justly proud, and which we all love so well. 

I am quite aware, that in terms, you say but little in favor of Amer-* 
lean Slavery as such. Your eulogies of the divine institution were 
confined mostly to the regions of Palestine ; but no one can kn.ow bet- 
ter than you that it was not the slavery of Abraham and his descendant*, 
of which the Synod were afraid, and which its members were prepjired. 
to pronounce sinful. You must have knpwn^Jiat thq Synad were uofc. \yar.« 



4 " SLAVEHOLDING KOT SINFUL:" 

ring with the ghost of the miserable system of bondage practised among 
the Jews thousands of years ago, and wliich perished with their nation 
centuries gone by, under the terrific visitations of the Almighty, pro- 
voked by their numerous sins. You must have known, also, that it 
was the slavery of this country, over the disgusting exhibitions of 
which the stars and stripes of freedom float in mockery — tlie slavery 
that exists in North Carolina, and within the limits of the Classis seek- 
ing admission into the Dutch church — which that body shrunk from 
participating in. This, and this only, was the slavery which you de- 
fended so valiantly, for this was the only slavery in question — none 
other needed defence. It is true, that in making your onset upon the 
friends of freedom, you found it much easier to raise a false issue, than 
to defend the true one. The only question was in regard to American 
Slavery, but to defend this, I presume, seemed too Herculean an under- 
taking to attempt directly^ and so you carefully threw over it the flimsy 
mantles of Abraham and Paul, and coolly transferred the scene of the 
conflict from the cotton fields and rice swamps, the slave pens, the 
auction blocks and whipping posts of the South, where it properly be- 
longed, to the land of the olive and the vine, Avhere the great ruler of 
tlie Universe, for reasons of his own, granted privileges to, and tolera- 
ted practices among, his peculiar and chosen people ; not sanctioned 
anywhere else, before or since; and although it is extremely difficult to 
find any analogy between the tAvo systems, except in a very doubtful 
use of the same term to designate them both, yet so adroitly have you 
presented your case, that if it had not been for certain modern express- 
ions wdiich you made use of, found only in the present pro-slavery 
vocabulary, we might, in fact, have been led into the impression that it 
was after all only the cmcient slavery that you was justifying. But the 
term " Abolitionists,''^ to mention no other, as applied to your adversa- 
ries, is unmistakeable on the subject, and leaves no doubt as to your 
true position. This expression, with all the aid of " Cruden's Concor- 
dance," I could not find in the Scriptures. It is decidedly modern. It 
is the same that is used in derision and reproach by every rampant 
pro-slavery man in the South, and by every doughftice of the North, 
to characterize all men, either North or South, who do not move quietly 
and submissively to the crack of the slavedrivers' whip, who find no 
soothing music in the clank of hand-cufts and chains with which men's 
limbs are fettered, and who cannot raise a heartfelt hosanna to the 
fugitive slave law, nor praise it as the " perfection of human wisdom " 
and the ne plus ultra of humanity and benevolence. 

I should be glad to believe that you had not condescended to use the 
term in this oflensive sense, particularly in the presence in which yoti 
?;poke, but the manner and connection in which you used it, leave but 
little chance for escape from the unfortunate and jnortifying conclusion. 
And besides this, there is no party nor class of men who call them- 
selves by this name. It is a designation given by others, and is used 
to caricature and reproach them in the absence of better arguments. 

It was American slavery, then, and not Je\nsh slaverj^, tliat you 
wag laboring to introduce into the Dutch church — which you not only 



A REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. § 

assert to be " without sin," but if your argument is sound, you prove 
to be without a stain. You unhesitatingly assert, not only that it is 
not sinful, not contrary to the Declaration of Independence, not con- 
trary to the Constitution of the United States, not a crime against man, 
but is in every respect " without spot or wrinkle or any such thing." 
I have not forgotten that you make the general remark that slavery is 
a great evil, but in its particulars you find nothing to condemn. 

Now, my dear sir, what is this system of American slavery which 
receives such extravagant laudations at your hands? It is quite useless 
to tell us that the relation of master and slave may exist Avithout sin, 
and without wrong. I do not doubt it. There are probably cases of 
the kind in New-Jersey, Avhere old and worn out slaves are cast by the 
law of the land upon their master or his estate, for maintenance and 
support. Here the owner could not sever the relationship if he would, 
and if in that condition he cares for them properly, such relationship 
cannot be considered sinful, but such cases prove nothing, except that 
n slaveholder may be humane, and that the laws of the land may im- 
pose some obligations on him which he would be very glad to be free 
from. 

But wo must look at slavery in this country as it is, not as it might 
be made — at its origin, its practices, its incidents, its consequences and 
traffic — the laws by which it is sanctioned — not merely what slave- 
liolders may do contrary to law, but Avhat they may do according to 
law, in all the States of the Union where it is tolerated. Let us look 
at a few of these features and see if it is the pure and immaculate thing- 
which you have described it to be, and which in your opinion should 
be taken, without further challenge, into the fraternal and affectionate 
embrace of the church of the world's Redeemer. Do not, I entreat you, 
be too anxious to get away to the "green shores of Jordan " for a rest- 
ing-place and for ground on which to stand and fight the battle which 
you have voluntarily commenced — we shall probably get there soon 
enough for your argument — but patiently accompany me along the 
dreary shores and burning sands of unfortunate and down-trodden Africa. 
Thence between decks to this land of the free, but home of the slave \ 
go with me to the slave-markets, and auction-blocks, and whippiufj- 
posts, and harems, and " slave-hells," established according to law. If 
you do not care to look upon the woolly-headed, and flat-nosed descend- 
ants of the " ebony kings," you may turn your attention to that more 
imposing Anglo-Saxon- African, with but a sixteenth of negro blood in 
his veins, with brow as broad, and heart as free, and skin as white, per- 
haps, as either of us ; but he, too, is bound in helpless, hopeless, and 
eternal bondage — bound to labor and toil and sweat and waste his wearv 
life out in ministering to the pleasures or profits of others — bound to 
be tortured and lashed and starved and sold and torn from home and 
friends and wife and children, at the will and caprice of the wretch 
whom the law makes his master. And if he attempt to gain the lib-, 
erty to which by nature all men are entitled, not only his master with 
his minions and bloodhounds are upon his track, but the judiciary of 
the nation and the police force of tlie nation and the armv of the nation 



SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL:" 



and the navy of the nation, and you and I sir, if commanded by the 
Marshal, at the peril of fine and imprisonment, concentrate our mighty 
eners^ies upon this miserable fugitive, until he is " caught and caged," 
and carried back to his inhuman tormentor, to be newly striped and 
scourged and chained and starved, until with crushed spirit and lacer-^ 
ated body, in the agony of despair he yields to his fate, without a friend 
who dares to sympathize with him, or a single ray of hope to cheer or 
relieve his desolate and miserable existence. This you maintain is 
neither sinful nor Avrong, only " an evil greatly to be lamented," But^ 
let us be a little more specific on this subject of American-Negro 
slavery. 

First, then, it has its very origin in man-stealincf. This may not be 
a sin at the present day, and it may not be contained in the eighth com- 
mandment, but I recollect that in the time of Moses and since, it was 
decidedly denounced and severely punished. Kow^, I presume, you wall 
not contend that the negroes were originally the natives of this coun- 
try, nor will it be pretended that they come here voluntarily. How, 
then, came they here in this enslaved condition ? The answer every 
one knows. Our ancestors both of Europe and America went to Africa 
and stole them, brought them hither in chains and enslaved them. Or 
if they did not steal them themselves, for a trifle they bought them of 
those who did, knowing them to have been stolen. The receiver is as 
bad as the thief. We of this country received the stolen goods, know- 
ing them to have been stolen. Whether, therefore, we stole them 
ourselves or obtained them of those Avho did, no matter how many 
degrees removed, our title is simply one of larceny. Deeply mortify- 
ing as this reflection is, and struggle though we may to evade and avoid 
the overwhelming fact, yet every eflbrt and every struggle brings us 
back to the certain and undeniable conclusion, that the title of every 
slaveholder in the land to his human chattels is a title whose founda- 
tion rests in the blackest crime, and has been developed and carried 
out with a fiendish cruelty and outrage, with which the world has long- 
been shocked — whilst the only right by which l^at title has been and 
still is maintained and enforced, is simply the right Avhich power gives 
to the strong to oppress, crush and enslave the weak. Only this and 
nothing more. I know quite well, that the laws of ^he States can, and 
have rendered titles thus acquired perfectly secure, but a title conceived 
in sin and brought forth in the foulest iniquity, can never by long con- 
tinuance nor by human laws be made rir/ht. 

It may be said, however, that this traflfic in human flesh has been 
long since prohibited. It is so when applied to the traflic between this 
country and Africa. It is now made piracy and punishable with death, 
but it is the basis of all our slave titles nevertheless ; and yet the slave 
traflic is a necessary incident to slavery. The latter cannot exist with- 
out the former, and at this very day and hour, the traffic in human 
beings, which, when carried on between this country and Africa, is 
punished with death, is allowed to be carried on between the States of 
the Union, between Baltimore and Charleston, between Louisville, St. 
Louis and New Orleans -with perfect impunity, accompanied by as many 



i. REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. 1 

frightful horrors as ever marked the African slave trade, and there is 
not a member of the Classis of North Carolina, who dares in his own 
pulpit to raise his voice against it. Is all this sinless ? 

Again, Is it sinful or is it not, to separate forever a husband and wife? 
You know it is perfectly laioful to do so in the slave States ; and you 
know, also, that it is the daily practice, whenever it is the will of the 
master to do so, but is it sinless and right in the sight of either God or 
man ? You, doubtless, when discharging the duties of a christian min- 
ister in the " Sunny South," joined many a male and female slave in 
what you then and there declared the holy bonds of matrimony. You 
invoked the divine blessing upon the union, and announced in the 
language of Omnipotence himself, "What therefore God has joined 
together let no man put asunder." I ask again, is it lawful in the sight 
of heaven, without cause, to sever unions thus created? Either such 
separations are highly criminal, or the Almighty takes no notice of the 
marriage of negroes, or else the above announcement of his is mean- 
ingless jargon — one or the other of these conclusions we cannot escape. 

Again, Are adultery and fornication among slaves sinful, or are they 
not? We know they are perfectly lawful in that system, and for pur- 
poses of gain are encouraged by it. We know, also, that they are of 
constant occurrence, and no one presumes to call them in question. 

But, further, Avhile you hold I believe to the good old doctrine of 
election, you also hold, I think, to the necessity of man's working out, 
in some measure, his own salvation with fear and trembling. To ena- 
ble us to do this, we are commanded to search the Scriptures, for they 
are they which testify of the means of salvation. Is it right then, or 
is it not — is it a sin, or is it otherwise, for a master wholly to deprive 
his slaves of the channels through which salvation is to be sought, by 
obstinately depriving them of the means and capacity of searching the 
Scriptures ? The laws of slavery not only justify this, but in all, or 
nearly so, of the slave States, they absolutely require it. There is 
probably not a slave State in the Union, wher« it is not made a crime 
to teach a slave to read. This you prove by a quotation in your own 
book, from a Southern publication. 

Let me ask again, briefly, for I can do little more than refer to the 
numerous points. Is it right or is it wrong, for masters or any other 
white man, to hold the power of life and d^ath over slaves ? This is 
not wholly the case, but iu certain v^ry usual circumstances it is 
exactly true. A master or other white man may take tlie life of one or 
a dozen slaves o-r do them other injury, in the presence of a hundred 
other slaves, and no law can reach him, provided he was cautious enough 
not to commit the act in the presence of a white or free person — for 
no slave can be a witness in any case where a white man is a party. 
They are not only defenceless, but wholly without remedy at law. 

Now, the points to whi'ch I have referred, ,are not merely isolated 
instances which occur but seldom, but they are of daily occurrence— they 
are part and parcel of the system. They are found wherever slavery 
is found, and are inseparable froi^ it. The saipe laws that sustam 



8 " SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL*." 

slavery sustain the crimes to which I have referred. They are not 
committed against law, but are done in accordance with it. 

I will refer to but one other of the sins of slavery, and I do so 
because you have yourself introduced it. I mean the violation of the 
Saviour's Golden Rule — a palpable, Avilful and unnecessary violation of 
which is a sin. This rule, by the aid of a most extraordinary interpreta- 
tion, you cite in support of slavery. I certainly could not have believed 
that you had done so, if I had not read it in your published remarks. 
I did not suppose there could be two opinions as to its proper meaning. 
Though not a theologian by profession, I will venture to give my under- 
standing of it. It clearly means to inculcate justice and fairness among 
men, and suggests the adoption of a rule which they would be willing 
should operate both ways. It applies of course to all lawful and proper 
desires and transactions, and not to unlawful and improper ones. It 
simply, but expressly requires that man in his dealings with his fellow 
man, should not knowingly exact any thing from him that he would bo 
unwilling to yield, if the same were demanded of him under similar 
circumstances. That we should do no injury to, nor impose any bur- 
thens on, our brother man which we would be unwilling to receive from 
him ; on the other hand, whatever Ave might lawfully and properly ex- 
pect and desire from others, in circumstances of distress or otherwise, 
we should be willing to extend to them. If we are hungry, naked, sick, 
or heavily and unjustly oppressed, we would have a right to desire and 
expect relief from our neighbors, and should therefore be willing to 
extend the same favors to them if thus afflicted. The murderer or 
other criminal on trial has no right to ask or expect or desire the juror 
to acquit him if guilty ; therefore the juror is not called upon by the 
rule to do so, on the ground that if he were the culprit, he " would '^ 
that the juror should acquit him, guilty though he was known and 
proved to be ; consequently your list of instances of criminal applica- 
tions for relief can have no proper application to the case. If they 
were meant to be embraced they must have been strangely overlooked 
in the announcement of the rule. 

This injunction contains the very essence and soul of Christianity, 
and Christ himself adds in regard to it, " For this is the law and the 
prophets." 

How, then, does slaveholding as practiced here, violate this rule ? 
We will take a common case, not extravagant either way, nor imusual. 
A man, no matter whether he professes to be Christian, Infidel, Mor- 
mon or Turk, desires the services of another to cultivate his fields, to 
drive his horses, to " fan him when he sleeps," or for some other lawful 
purpose : instead of contracting with some one to perform the services 
and to pay him a reasonable compensation therefor, he betakes himself 
to the slave-ship, or the slave-market, or the auction-room, or some- 
wiiere else, where slaves are to be sold. He there finds a man in 
fetters, who has never harmed a human being in his life, and is guilty 
of no crime whatever, except that of being a negro, or partially so. 
He says nothing to the unfortunate victim, but of the man who claims 
to own him. he buvs him. He carries him to his home and thus ad- 



A REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. 9 

dresses him, " Xow Onesimus, I liave bought you. I am your master 

(and you are my slave, my will is your supreme law. From morning 
V until niglit you are to work for me, as long as you live. My orders are 

in all cases to be promptly obeyed. You are not to absent your- 
self from my service for an hour without my permission. If you diso- 
bey me or refuse to perform what I require of you, or in any other 
way seriously offend me, I shall flog you into submission, or if I cannot 
do it myself, the public authorities will help me. If you attempt to 
run away I will hunt you with bloodhounds, and the whole nation will 
assist me in retaking you." All these things the master has a perfect 
right to do and proceeds to carry them out, and actually does so without 
b<iing considered guilty of any unnecessary cruelty. 

Now, I assert that there breathes not a man on the face of this earth 
who would be •willing to be treated thus, nor is there one so debased 
that could be compelled to submit to it, except from the most overwhelm- 
ing necessity. No man, therefore, who acts thus towards his felloAv man 
ca)i be doing as he would have others do to him. lie is consequently 
living in the daily wilful and unnecssary violation of the Saviour's 
rule, and as a matter of course in the daily practice of sin. 

I will leave for a time the field of American slavery where man — 

— finds his fellow guilty of a skin 
Kot colored like his own ; and having power 
T' enforce the wrong, for such a worthy cause. 
Dooms and devotes liim as a lawful prey, 
Chains him and tasks him and exacts his sweat 
"With stripes, that mercy with a bleeding heart 
Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast — 

and will examine as briefly as possible the ground of your justification 
of slaveholding. I think that I neither mistake nor misrepresent your 
position, when 1 say, that your justification of slaveholding in this coun- 
try, is based entirely and exclusively on the fact, that slaveholding, as 
it was practised among the Hebrews, was never directly condemned by 
God himself, nor by au}^ one who it is conceded spoke by his authority ; 
on the contrary, as you contend, it received their sanction. 

In the first place, it is not shown that there is any considerable 
analogy between the two systems. The Hebrews held bondmen, some 
from among their own people, and some from among the nations which 
surrounded them, but they had no such thing as negro slavery. They 
had no nation or race of men about them doomed to slavery as a mat- 
ter of course, on account of their nation and race — although the 
descendants of Ham existed then as well as now. Their bondmen 
from among their own people, answered somewhat to modern appren- 
ticeships, as they could only be held for a limited time, and the enslav- 
ing of their ungodly heathen neighbors had its origin, probably, in the 
practice of all nations in former times, Jews and heathens, of subject- 
ing to slavery prisoners of war ; a practice long since condemne<:l and 
abandoned as too inhuman to be longer tolerated. And as the pecidiar 
people of God were allowed to conquer and subdue the nations about 
them generally, they doubtless had many such prisoners, as well as 



10 " SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL;" 

their heathen neighbors ; but as all were not captors, those who were 
not, if they owned any of these slaves, had to buy them somewhere, 
consequently some of them owned servants " that were bought with their 
moneyT 

But sXippose we admit for the sake of the argument, that the 
Almighty, for reasons of his own, permitted slavery among his chosen 
people without reproof, does it follow as a matter of course that we can, 
without sin, practice the same thing? Why, half the sins mentioned 
in the decalogue can be justified on the same pretense. Abraham 
seems to be your model slaveholder. God does not seem to have ap- 
proved or disapproved of his holding servants, and only interfered 
with the relation between them so far as to require Abraham to circum- 
cise his servants so as to bring them, like himself, within tlie covenant. 
But you should have gone further with the faithful Abraham, and should 
have told lis that he not only had men servants whom he circumcised, 
but that he had a female slave also, Hagar, by whom, in the lifetime of 
his wife, he had an illegitimate child, without ever having been c-ensur^ 
ed or reproved for it by the iVlmighty ; but will you undertake to reason 
from this that the patriarchs of the present day, the great heads of the 
<;hurch here, may now do the same thing and be innocent, on the ground 
that Abraham was allowed to do so without disapprobation ? Why 
not this, as well as the other ? Perhaps, however, this was considered 
only " an evil," and not a sin, and the practice of Abraham in this 
respect seems to be considered a good and safe precedent by many of 
our slaveholding masters -of the present day. He also liad concubines 
and had children by them without reproof, but can this furnish any 
pretense for a justification of the same thing now? Abraham, more- 
over, was guilty of falsehood by twice denying his wife, or if she was 
in fact his sister, as he said, then he was guilty of incest. This must 
have been known to the all-wise Jehovah, yet so far from condemning 
it, not only the chosen people, but the Messiah himself, was made to 
spring from this union ; but can this furnish any apology for incest at 
the j^resent day ? 

Again, It seems that the Israelites, after their deliverance from 
Egypt, were permitted and required to kill, to destroy and drive out 
the nations and tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan, with w^hom they 
had no quarrel, and to possess their lands, with an apparent cruelty 
and inhumanity with which every reader must be shocked. The 
Almighty does not seem to have disapproved of any of these tilings, 
but to have commajided them. But can it be fairly inferred from this 
that we may, without just cause, invade Canada, Mexico, Central or 
South America, or the Sandwich Islands, slaughter and destroy the 
inhabitants, possess and enjoy their lands as our own, and innocently 
justify our conduct by turning to the Scriptures and there finding it 
recorded that the descendants of Jacob did the same thing in the land 
of Canaan, without incurring the divine disapprobation ? I am inclined 
to admit that we too are rather a " peculiar " people, but I cannot think 
we can d-® such things n-ow without incurring the Divine displeasure. 

It seems, too, that many of the wisest and best men among the Jews, 



A REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. 11 

of whom the Bible gives us any account, were men addicted to polyg- 
amy, concubinage, and many other offences now deemed sinful. Among 
the number were Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and others, who so 
far from being reproved by Providence for their conduct, were on 
the contrary chosen, some of them, as the inspired channels of com- 
munication between God alid man. 

Now, you can no more prove the correctness of Jewish bondage 
even, by the Scriptures, than you can prove the correctness of the other 
practices to which I have referred. All seem to be alike approved, 
none of them seem to have been disapproved. All the explanation we 
can give, is that they were his peculiar and chosen people, who, for 
reasons of his own, he permitted to act as they did. 

Such was not the Divine pleasure, however, when the Israelites 
were enslaved and oppressed. When a certain king arose in Egypt 
"that knew not Joseph," and began to oppress the descendants of Jacob, 
and persisted in His refusal to let them go, for their sakes the land was 
infested with frogs and lice and flies and locusts, enveloped in darkness, 
and smitten with hail and the death of the first born, and in the final 
destruction of the king and his armies in the Red Sea, all because of the 
ctuel bondage in which His people were held. I am aware that there 
was a great end in view here, and so there was throughout the entire 
liistory of that people ; hence God's dealings with them were diff"erent 
from all others, and cannot be pleaded by us as a justification for crime 
and outrage. 

A few words, now, on the Xew Testament part of your argument. 
My reply is very much the same as to the other part. All you have 
proved or can prove from the New Testament, are the facts that servi- 
tude was found to exist in those times, that neither Christ nor any of 
his apostles in direct terms condemned the institution, but on the con- 
trary admonished those connected therewith, either as master or servant, 
to perform with faithfulness the duties which the laws of the institution 
required. It is not pretended that they approved of it in any other 
way than this. 

It is a sufiicient answer to all that has been or can be said on this 
subject, tliat neither Christ nor any of his apostles ever attempted to 
interfere with any of the legal institutions of the country. They never 
preached rebellion against the laws, nor resistance to the constituted 
authorities. The language of Christ was "render unto Caesar the 
things that be Csesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Servi- 
tude, such as it was, was an institution established and protected by law 
as much as marriage or any other; and the laws of those times and 
that place, be it remembered, were not as here made by the people 
themselves, who claim to denounce and alter them at pleasure, but they 
were made up of the edicts of emperors and kings, and to speak against 
them was to incur the penalties of treason. When all the world was 
to be taxed, the decree of Augustus was all that was necessary, and the 
advocates of a kingdom not of this world, were too wise to obstruct 
their moral mission among men, and their access to the heart and 
conscience, by stirring up sedition and revolt against the laws of the 



12 

IleroJs and the Caesars. Their mission -would doubtless have been 
brought to a speedy close by such a course. Foes beset them on every 
side, watching for an opportunity to entrap them into some violation 
of the civil laws, consequently they carefully abstained from all legal 
matters calculated to subject them to the jurisdiction of the civil mag- 
istrate, deeming some things "not expedient," and preferring rather to 
be " all things to all men," the better thereby to accomplish their divine 
mission ; and yet the sublime morality of the doctrines which they 
taught, of justice and righteousness, humanity and benevolence, of peace 
on eartli and good will to men, as well as the meek, humble, lowly 
and self-denying lives which they led, were calculated to abolish every 
wrong and every "evil" — even that of holding their fellow-men in bond- 
age. The nation which rejected their doctrines has long since perished, 
but the great truths themselves still abide, and before their quiet but 
resistless advance the stupendous "evil" is being everywhere swept away, 
leaving but little of it in Christendom, except in the decayed despotism 
of old Spain, the torrid empire of Brazil, and a portion of this liberty- 
loving country. 

Christ himself, I believe, never alluded to the subject of bondage, 
except in illustration of something else. The apostles occasionally ex- 
horted husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants 
to submit patiently to the condition in which they found themselves 
under the law, and faithfully to comph' with its requirements, and in 
this way they referred to the subject, without either approbation or 
disapprobation. You do not pretend, however, that they ever directly 
approved of what you term slavery, but your whole argument is, that 
inasmuch as they knew of it, and spoke of it, and did not condemn it, 
therefore they must have approved it. It is not probable that either 
of them approved of the Roman dominion over Judea, and the taxes 
to which the people were subjected to support the imperial tyranny, 
yet they never condemned it, consequently they must have approved it. 
It cannot be doubted that there were many laws and practises introduced 
and enforced in Palestine after its conquest by Pagan Rome, which 
Christ and his apostles mentally condemned, but as it does not appear 
that they ever said so publicly, therefore we are bound to suppose that 
they must have heartily approved of them. ^Miat strange logic this 
seems to be, and yet without it you have no case at all. 

But you seem to have made one other discovery, new, if not useful, 
more strange if possible than the others, and that is, that the "aboli- 
tionists " of the General Synod are utterly crushed and confounded by 
the command " Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's man-servant, nor 
his maid-servant, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's," which you ac- 
company with a dissertation on the rights of property; but what this 
has to do with the case is more than I can tell. Which of the abolition 
members of the Synod, or of any other body, think you, coveted the 
slaves, of either the Chassis of North Carolina, or elsewhere. To covety 
as I understand it, is the ardent desire to own or i)ossess a thing; now 
you certainly know as well as any one else, that although the " aboli- 
tionists " desire the freedom of the slaves, thev have no desire to own 



A REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. 13 

or possess them themselves. The pirate, the bandit, the burglar, the 
robber and the forger, all have and own what they call " property," and 
property too, of which we should all be glad to see them deprived, but 
do Ave covet that property ? I heard of a gentleman not far from our 
City, whose house was entered by burglars. Through the daring and 
courageous conduct of his son, the burglars were arrested and carried 
to prison. On examination, they were found in the possession, among 
other " property," of two pistols, loaded to the muzzles. Although the 
rrentleman was very indignant at the sight of these, and had the mis- 
creants instantly deprived of them, and from fear of a repetition of the 
oflfenco went immediately and purchased a pair of his own, yet I never 
learned nor supposed that he ever coveted those of the burglars. 

You labor at much length to show that the condition of the slaves 
among the Jews was much better than among any other people. I do 
not doubt it, and it accounts for its toleration among them at all ; for sure 
I am, that if the inhuman, debasing and demoralizing practices which 
prevail and are tolerated under the shield of the slave laws of this 
country, had been enacted in the land where the Saviour denounced op- 
pression and preached deliverance to the captive, such practices would 
have been discontinued— but how this strengthens your argument in 
favor of the American " evil," I do not see. 

Under three separate heads you propose to give us the "reasons 
FOR THE PERMISSION OF SLAVERY," and although you have discussed 
them at length, you have given us no reason whatever, for either the 
original institution of servitude, or for the permission of it after it was 
introduced. Like thousands of other " evils " which Providence might 
liave prevented, but did not, it made its way into the world ; and like 
all other '* e\^ils " which Providence might abolish and does not, but 
permits to exist, this overshadowing one of slavery is still allowed to 
shroud over, with its sable pall, the fair face of more than half our 
country — producing misery, degradation and crime, idleness, cruelty, 
decay and moral leprosy, wherever its haughty and dictatorial spirit is 
recognized and submitted to. _ _ ^ 

You five some good reasons for the regulating and restraining oi 
the system among "the Jews as an existing institution, but you give 
none for its pernussion. For this I do not blame you, for I am well 
aware that none can be found. These reasons for regulating the " evil " 
exist with all their force in this country, but alas ! the regulations 
themselves are nowhere to be found. 

One of the reasons which you furnish for the regulation of the 
system among the Jews is, that" the bondmen of that country should 
not be exclud^ed from the privileges of Christianity, but on the contrary 
were expressly required to be brought within its pale, thus putting 
them in this respect on an equal footing with the most exalted in the 
land; but who pretends that the same state of things exists here? An- 
other reason was that they might be protected against theerueltyof 
those who exercised dominion over them. You kindly furnish us with 
the Hebrew authoritv, that "if a man smite the eye of his man-servant, 
or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for the 



14 " SLAVEHOLDING ^OT SINFUL:" 

eye's sake ; and if he smite out his man-servant's tooth or his maid-ser- 
vant's tooth, he shall let him go free for the tooth's sake ;" but sad to 
say, the poor, powerless, friendless slave of this " glorious Union," has 
no such protection from the law. The master or his minions may smite 
out one of his eyes or both of them — he may smite out one of his teeth 
or all of them— be may lacerate his body and break his bones — humanity 
may give a spasmodic shudder, but the victim is still his slave forever. 

It is fair to presume, that another of the regulations of Jewish ser- 
vitude was the right of the servant to leave the service of his master 
when cruelly treated; or if it was not strictly their right so to do, yet 
that they had no commissioners, nor marshals, nor fugitive slave laws 
there, through whose intervention they were to be returned to bondage. 
You find but two cases in the Scriptures of what you term " fugitive 
slaves," and I presume these are all — Ilagar and Onesimus. We do 
not learn that either Abraham or Philemon, the masters, ever pur- 
sued these slaves, or attempted through others to recapture them, and 
although both returned, yet neither of them did so by coercion of the 
law or any of its officers. Hagar returned by direction of the iVngel, 
because the child to which she was to give birth was to be of the seed 
of Abraham. He was to be the father of a great nation, to be circum- 
cised like the rest of Abraham's family, and he was to "dwell in the 
presence of all his brethren." These things would have been frustrated 
tf the child had been born and perished in the wilderness whither Hagar 
had fled. The Angel accordingly directed her to return to a place of 
safety, which she did. 

Onesimus, you inform us, " ran away from his master," but how you 
find this out, I am at a loss to know. You certainly do not find it in 
Paul's epistle to Philemon. How he became separated from Philemon, 
if he ever belonged to him, we are not informed ; whether he was the 
slave or servant of Philemon is left entirely to conjecture. Paul cer- 
tainly does not call him by any such name, he simply calls him his son, 
nor did he send him back as a "s7aye." He expressly says that he does 
not send him back " as a servant, but above a servant, a brother belov- 
ed." He also adds, that if he, Onesimus, " had wronged him, or owed 
him ought," he, Paul, would pay it, not to exact it from Onesimus. 
He was now a converted Christian, and was to be thenceforth, not the 
servant or slave of any man, but a laborer in the cause of Christ. 

If Onesimus was a slave in the sense for which you are contending, 
then you must accuse Paul of harboring a " fugitive slave." How long 
he had been with him does not exactly appear ; but, judging from the 
circumstances, it must have been some time, and Paul seems at one time 
to have contemplated the retaining of him altogether. 

But all these favorable aspects of Hebrew servitude, only bring us 
back with increased force to the unanswered and unanswerable question. 
Admitting, even, that the system of Hebrew servitude, regulated as 
it was by some just laws, and guarded as the servants were against un- 
due oppression, and for reasons founded in the great designs of Provi- 
dence, was not sinful, how ca7i that justify the hideous curse which 
hangs over this country ? Commenced in crime, carried out in the most 



A REPLY TO REV. BR. HOW. 1^ 

Mierciless cruelty, spreading blight, mildew and decay oyer the land of 
its victims, — constantly threatening dissolution, violence and civil war 
among the States, and making the entire nation a hye-word and a 
reproach in the face of the civilized world. 

It is useless to tell me that noasters are kind, and that the slaves aro 
happy and contented. Their contentment is shoivn by the thousands 
who every year brave every hardship and everj^ danger in making their 
escape from bondage, men destroying their own lives, and mothers 
slaughtering their helpless and imofFending children rather than have 
them subjected to slavery, and this too, in the States where the "evil" 
exists in its mildest form. 

Masters kind and humane, forsooth 1 Yes, I presume they are at 
times, many of them perhaj^s always so, but we know too well what 
becomes of kindness and humanity when passion and pov^^er are united 
together — when both are unrestrained, and the occasion arises for their 
exercise. The chances for kindness and humanity with masters who 
practically deny all human nature to their slaves, and view them only 
in the light of "property," as you seem to do, are but slender indeed. 
The man loves his horse and cares for him kindly and humanely so 
long as he wins every race, passes every vehicle on the road, and never 
faints nor flags under the most exhausting trials ; but let him once re- 
fuse to draw the load that is placed behind him, then we have an 
illustration of kindness and humanity quite equal to the slaveholders. 
The man'loves his dog with quite an affectionate attachment so long as ho 
scents the game and points to its whereabouts with unerring certainty ; 
but let him by accident once " flush " the bird before his master is ready, 
and he will flog him within an inch of his life. So the man may like and 
kindly treat his slave, so long as with the most unfaltering and unswerv- 
ing faithfulness he ministers to his every want, wish, whim and caprice ; 
but let him once fail to do so, and he fares no better than the favorite 
horse and the dog. 

Your impressions of the humanity of the slave system in this coun- 
try are in some measure founded, no doubt, on your experience in the 
South. This is quite natural, but I fear you have allowed it to mislead 
you. You are doubtless aware that even here we all lay aside our 
vices and crimes and put on our best behavior in the presence of "the 
dominie." So in the South, no man ever carried his slave in your pre- 
sence to be lashed, or to have the thumb-screw applied — no one ever 
bared the striped back of his slave for your inspection, l^one volun- 
tarily made you a witness to the ruthless separation of husbands and 
wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters, to meet again, never I 
No one ever carried you to the negro nursery where human chattels 
are reared for the market, like horses and cattle and swine. The fact, 
therefore, that you never saw anj^ of these things, should not lead you 
to conclude that they do not exist. 

I, too, have seen something of this peculiar institution in the South. 
I have seen the Capital of the nation desecrated by having a drove of 
negroes of all ages, sexes and conditions, bound together and driven 
along its principal streets to a railroad depot, whence they were to be 



16 A REPLY TO REV. DR. HOW. 

transported further South. I have entered, too, the s]aye-i-)ens, where 
hundreds of human beings of all aspects and conditions, and of almost 
all colors, bought up in the surrounding countr}^ were literally hud- 
dled together like cattle, sheep and swine, preparatory to their beinir 
sent to the cotton fields and sugar plantations down the river. I- have 
stood, too, by the auction-block and seen parents and children sold like 
other beasts of burden, to the highest bidder, no matter who he might 
be, to be carried by him whithersoever he might think proper, and to 
be subjected without restraint to whatever hardship and cruelty his 
whim or malice might suggest or invent. 

But why proceed with horrors so deeply disgraceful to our nation — 
horrors with which millions are but too familiar — horrors which thou- 
sands will not raise a finger to mitigate, and horrors which not a few, 
oven liere, are prepared to justify and defend. 

The beneficial effects of Christianity on slaveholding, to which you 
refer, I do not, of course, deny, and shall not discuss. It is well that 'it is' 
so, for if slavery be so great an " evil," with all the mitigating influences 
of Christianity upon it, God only can tell what it woutd be without it; 
but this is nothing in favor of a system scarcely endurable with such an 
influence. I pass by, also, for the present, the'political aspects of slave- 
ry. Whether it is contrary to the Declaration of Independence and 
the Constitution, whether it is a crime against human nature or not, 
and how we may get rid of it, are matters which I will reserve for a 
future occasion if need be. 

As you have delivered your argument twice, and written it out once, 
vou will not care, probably, to travel over the same ground again ; but 
if at the next General Synod you shall think proper to discuss the 
other features of the peculiar and patriarchal institution, I may find it 
expedient to continue the subject. 

Very respectfully, I am your friend and obedient servant, 

JOHN VAN DYKE. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 899 488 7 



